Kerala High Court
Muralichand vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation on 24 June, 2022
W.P.(C)No.11722/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022 / 3RD ASHADA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 11722 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
MURALICHAND
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. SARATHCHANDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT
CHANDRAMANGALAM, T.C.NO.7/1385-I, VETTAMUKKU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. SARATHCHANDRAN NAIR,
S/O. A.K.JANARDHANAN NAIR, AGED 64, RESIDING AT
CHANDRAMANGALAM T.C.NO.7/1385-I, VETTAMUKKU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006
BY ADVS.
SRI P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SMT.MEERA P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
2 THE SECRETARY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
3 THE CHIEF TOWN PANER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PANNER, 2ND FLOOR, SWARAJ
BHAVAN, NANDANCODE,KAVADIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2022, THE COURT ON 24.6.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.11722/2020
2
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.11722 of 2020
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioner owns 20 cents of land in Sy.Nos.1221/B-1-1,
B-1 and B-4 of Thycaud Village. The properties were purchased
in the year 2008 as per Ext.P1. The petitioner applied for
building permit before the 1st respondent on 10.4.2018. The
application was rejected as per Ext.P3 dated 29.11.2018 stating
that as per the Detailed Town Planning Scheme (DTP Scheme for
short), for the road from Thycaud Women and Children Hospital
Junction to Aryasala Junction, the land in which the petitioner
intends to make the construction, is one to be acquired for
commercial use. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 before this
Court by filing W.P.(C)No.2912 of 2019. By Ext.P4 judgment
dated 25.3.2019, this Court directed the petitioner to avail of
the statutory remedy available under Section 509(6) of the
Kerala Municipality Act and Rule 160 of the Kerala Municipality
Building Rules. On 22.4.2019, the petitioner issued Ext.P5
notice to respondents 1 and 2 under Section 67 of the Town and
Country Planning Act, 2016 (2016 Act for short) requesting
them to purchase his interest in the land and also stating that if
W.P.(C)No.11722/2020
the Corporation fails to initiate action for acquisition within 10
days from the receipt of the notice as provided under Section
67(2) of the 2016 Act, the petitioner will be entitled to the
building permit as sought for. The petitioner had also filed
W.A.No.1707 of 2019 against the judgment Ext.P4, which was
disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing the 1st respondent to
take appropriate decision as provided under Section 67 of the
2016 Act and communicate the decision to the petitioner within
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The judgment was rendered on 14.11.2019. The petitioner
forwarded the judgment to the 2nd respondent on 7.12.2019 as
seen from Ext.P7. When action was not forthcoming, the
petitioner filed Contempt Case No.250 of 2020 before this Court.
The learned Standing Counsel on instructions submitted before
this Court that on 16.12.2019, a decision has been taken under
Section 67 of the 2016 Act and that the same will be
communicated to the petitioner. The contempt case was closed
recording the above submission, by Ext.P8 judgment dated
31.1.2020. The 1st respondent thereafter issued a notice on
31.1.2020 to the petitioner referring to the decision of the
Council dated 16.12.2019 in which it is stated that the Town
Planning Committee of the 1st respondent had considered the
W.P.(C)No.11722/2020
request of the petitioner for acquisition of the property and
recommended acquisition for future development. It is further
stated that the Council had considered the issue and taking note
of the fact that hospitals, railway station and bus stand are
situated near the property, it was decided that the property can
be acquired for the purpose of construction of a rest home,
short stay home and pay and park for the benefit of the public.
It is also stated that the Superintending Engineer has been
entrusted with the duty to initiate acquisition process.
2. The counsel for the 1st respondent has filed a
statement stating that the Council had decided to acquire the
property and a letter had been sent to the District Collector for
acquisition of the land after deciding the purchase value, but
that no reply has been received from the District Collector and a
reminder letter has also been sent for follow up action. The said
statement was filed on 30.9.3031.
3. Heard Sri P.B.Subramanyan on behalf of the petitioner
and Sri N.Nandakumara Menon, Senior Advocate
instructed by Sri P.K.Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel for the
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, on behalf of the respondents.
4. The counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that
a decision as required under Section 67(1) of the 2016 Act has
W.P.(C)No.11722/2020
not been taken and hence the petitioner is entitled to the
building permit as applied for. Yet another contention that is
taken is that even after the decision which is stated to have
been taken as per Ext.P11, no acquisition proceedings have
been started till date and hence the provisions of the Section 67
can no longer be applied.
5. In the decision in District Town Planner,
Malappuram v. Vinod & Ors. reported in [2019 (3) KHC
672], a Division Bench of this Court held that going by Section
67, where any land is designated for compulsory acquisition in
the Town Planning Scheme, but no acquisition proceedings were
initiated within a period of two years from the date of coming
into operation of the plan, the owner or the affected person may
serve a purchase notice requiring the authority to purchase the
interest in land. The authority, within 60 days of receipt of such
notice, is statutorily required to decide on the acquisition of the
property. If the land is designated for any Government
Department or other authorities the information on the receipt
of purchase notice is to be forwarded to the said authority. As
per the Section, if an authority decides not to acquire the land,
variation of the development plan should be made and even
otherwise, if land acquisition could not be effected within two
W.P.(C)No.11722/2020
years of the resolution to acquire the land, the authorities
prescribed under Section 67(5) of the Act should initiate suitable
variation of the plan. The Court further held that statutory
consequences for failure of the authority to acquire the land
notified under the Town Planning Scheme are clearly delineated
and the Act itself suggests that the property owner cannot be
indefinitely deprived of his right to the enjoyment of the
property under the pretext that the land is earmarked for
acquisition under the DTP Scheme. The counsel for the
petitioner relies on the above judgment to submit that it
squarely applies to the facts of this case. It is pointed out that
the DTP Scheme provided for compulsory acquisition of the land
for commercial use as is evident from Ext.P3 order of rejection
of building permit. Almost four years have elapsed even after
Ext.P3. If the notice under Section 67 is to be the criterion, the
same was issued on 22.4.2019 and 60 days had elapsed by
24.6.2019. No decision had been taken for acquisition within
the said 60 days. As such, the statutory period available was
over. Admittedly, the decision was taken only on 16.12.2019,
almost six months thereafter. The Senior Counsel appearing for
the Corporation submitted that the judgment of this Court in the
writ appeal preferred by the petitioner was rendered only on
W.P.(C)No.11722/2020
14.11.2019 and hence the time of 60 days stood extended
further. However, this Court had not made any such observation
in Ext.P6 judgment and had merely taken note of the fact that
the 60 days period had already expired even on the date of the
judgment. I do not think that the 1st respondent can take any
advantage of the date of Ext.P6 judgment, and get the time
statutorily fixed under Section 67 extended. So also, even if the
date of Ext.P6 judgment is to be considered, the fact remains
that more than two years have elapsed after the judgment and
no acquisition proceedings have been initiated so far. Even
though an attempt was made to rely on the decisions of the
Apex Court and this Court extending the period of limitation, the
same will also not come to the advantage of the 1 st respondent
for the purpose of extending the period of limitation prescribed
under Section 67 of the 2016 Act.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in District Town
Planner v. Joby reported in [2020 (6) KLT 600] had held
that Section 67 is an indicator that clearly expresses that an
owner of the property cannot be kept in limbo under the guise
of public interest and town planning and it is to be viewed along
with constitutional right of the owner of a property conferred
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, whereby no
W.P.(C)No.11722/2020
person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law.
In Abul Hakkeem v. Manjeri Municipality reported in [2018
(1) KLT 1026], this Court has held that if Section 67 is to be
treated as mandatory, if the local authority fails to pass a
resolution either in favour of or against acquisition within the
statutory period, the applicant is entitled to the building permit
if he is otherwise entitled to. The petitioner is hence entitled to
succeed in this writ petition.
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P3, P9,
P10 and P11 are quashed. There will be a direction to the
respondents to grant building permit to the petitioner for
construction of a commercial building as requested for, in the
extent of 20 cents in Sy.Nos.1221/B-1-1, B-1 and B-4 of
Thycaud Village.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
dsn
W.P.(C)No.11722/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11722/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 DATED 14.7.2008, TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.264/08 SRO CHALA
EXHIBIT P2 DATED 25.4.2017, TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT
NO.0584090 ISSUED BY THE THYCAUD VILLAGE
OFFICER
EXHIBIT P2A DATED 3.6.2019, TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL 010112401659/019 ISSUED BY THE THYCAUD
VILLAGE OFFICER
EXHIBIT P3 DATED 29.11.2018, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.E6/BA/226850/18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 DATED 25.03.2019, TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P(C)) NO.2912 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P5 DATED 22.4.2019, TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT
BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 67(1) OF THE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 2016 TO THE
RESPONDENT CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P6 DATED 14.1.2019, TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.A.N.1707 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P7 DATED 7.12.2019, TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SEND
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION, ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P8 DATED 31.1.2020 , TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
CON.CASE (C) NO.250 OF 2020 IN W,A NO.1707 OF
2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P9 DATED 31.1.2020 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.36/226850/18 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P10 DATED 29.10.209, TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF
THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION, RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI ACT
EXHIBIT P11 DATED 16.12.2019, TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF
THE COUNCIL OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION,
RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI ACT
